The media debate has moved from blame for the government shutdown to whether the shutdown itself is such a bad thing.
No government? No problem. About 800,000 federal employees
furloughed? Some of them are probably freeloaders who shouldn’t be on
the payroll anyway.
That, at least, is what some conservatives are suggesting as the
impasse enters its third day, while many liberals are bemoaning the
impact of it.
On the left, the Huffington Post blared these headlines at the top of
its home page: “Kids With Cancer Blocked From Clinical Trials,” “Food
Safety Inspections Suspended,” “Search for Missing Woman Put on Hold,”
“NASA Grounded” and “National Parks Closed.”
On the right, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol urges the Republicans to ignore the “media hype.”
“The best thing Speaker Boehner could probably do now is to say it's
obvious Senate Democrats aren't going to negotiate, that the House GOP
remains ready to talk (and the GOP conferees are in town and ready to
confer), but that he's sending the rest of the Republican congressmen
home for the next few days in order to talk with their constituents,” he
said. “The members would be liberated from the Beltway bubble, free to
make their case where they can best make it, able to fight back against
media attempts to exaggerate the consequences of the shutdown, and would
have a chance to remind voters, in the exchanges' first week of
operation, of just how bad in how many ways ObamaCare is…
“So the GOP's agenda for the rest of this week (and maybe until the
debt limit deadline of October 17) is pretty simple: Stand pat on the
shutdown, don't panic because of media hype or a few snap polls, make
their case on the mandate and the special deal for Congress in
particular, and on ObamaCare in general—and figure out how to play their
hand on the debt limit.”
That’s an interesting phrase, that “media attempts to exaggerate the
consequences of the shutdown.” We went through a version of this with
the battle over the budget sequester, when the Obama administration used
sky-is-falling rhetoric and much of that was trumpeted by the MSM. Some
of the dire effects never came to pass.
But shutting down lots of federal agencies is a whole lot more
drastic, and whatever your view of the politics, the impact is very
real.
I was on “Special Report” last night, and Charles Krauthammer, making
the case that the president is enjoying the political benefit of a
longer shutdown, said the impact of the government closing was
“negligible.” Maybe in macro-economic terms, I said, but not for the
millions of people whose paychecks or services are affected, either
directly or indirectly.
Still, after a meeting with Hill leaders at the White House that
resolved nothing, we are in the surreal position of arguing about the
fallout from closing the United States government. During an interview
with CNBC, John Harwood asked the president about the markets’
relatively calm reaction to the shutdown.
“I think this time’s different,” Obama said. “I think they should be concerned.”
It almost sounded like the president was trying to talk down the
markets or at least ratchet the pressure with the debt-ceiling deadline
coming in two weeks.
CNN has a new survey on how this is playing so far.
“According to the poll, 56% of Americans said it would be a bad thing
if the debt ceiling was not raised, with 38% saying it would be a good
thing for the country,” it says. “By a 51% to 43% margin, the public
said it is more important to raise the debt ceiling than to delay
ObamaCare. A larger majority, 64% to 27%, in a Quinnipiac University
survey released Tuesday said they opposed blocking an increase in the
debt ceiling as a way to dismantle the health care law.”
And who is to blame?
“If the debt ceiling is not raised, just over half of those
questioned in the CNN poll, 53%, said congressional Republicans would be
more responsible rather than Obama, with 31% pointing more fingers at
the president,” CNN reports.
What about ObamaCare, the seemingly endless battle that brought us the shutdown? Salon says conservatives should be wary of excessively celebrating the initial problems with the roll out.
“Since glitches could undermine public confidence in ObamaCare and
Republicans hate the idea of providing coverage to the uninsured and
fear nothing more than the eventual success of the law, this was ‘good
news’ on the right.
“Too bad for them the government shutdown they’re responsible for
deprived almost all other national news of oxygen. While most government
agencies are shuttered for the time being, the Affordable Care Act is
humming along on autopilot, its implementation scarcely impacted by the
shutdown. Under cover of the media’s obsession with GOP infighting and
attendant dysfunction, the administration will have a second chance to
make a first impression.
“But that means not taking anything for granted. ACA supporters
everywhere, including the president, attributed first day snafus to an
unexpected traffic tsunami. It was all good news, they claimed. The
demand for ObamaCare is greater than expected.” Still, “eventually —
actually, very soon — these websites will need to work reliably for
every eligible person who wants to access benefits.”
If not, that will surely help the Republican argument that the law isn’t ready for prime time.
I’ll close with a history lesson from National Review about
past shutdowns, given the recent GOP refrain that “even Tip O’Neill”
shut down the government in what were supposedly the good old days of
bipartisan cooperation. It started in the Carter administration, and
then “the shutdowns of the Reagan-O’Neill era … were more
budget-focused, and the disputes they involved were over a wider range
of policies. They also took less time to resolve. The first such
shutdown occurred in November 1981, less than a year into Reagan’s first
term. Reagan had demanded at least $4 billion in domestic-spending
cuts, and when Congress did not oblige, he vetoed a spending package,
triggering a government shutdown. Technically, the shutdown lasted only a
few hours, until Congress approved a three-week spending resolution to
give lawmakers time to negotiate a long-term deal.
“The government briefly shut down twice the following year, the first
time because the House simply failed to pass an agreed-on spending bill
before funding expired. According to the New York Times, party leaders
missed the deadline in order to attend 'major social events,' which
included a barbecue at the White House and a high-dollar Democratic
fundraiser. Reagan ultimately accepted a funding agreement even though
it called for higher levels of spending than he would have liked.
“Months later, the government shut down for several days in part over
the House’s refusal to fund an intercontinental-missile program that
Reagan supported. The House also wanted more than $5 billion in funding
for public-works projects, which Reagan had threatened to veto. In the
end, the public-works funding was scrapped, but so was funding for the
missile program.
“Another shutdown occurred in November 1983 after House Democrats
requested an additional $1 billion in funding for education and reduced
spending on defense and foreign aid.”
What is striking is how most of this involved pretty small potatoes.
That’s not the case this time, and the high stakes are the reason the
standoff may not be settled any time soon.
Join The Patriot Guard